So let's assume there was wide spread consensus that it's a terrible idea and it should work like every other programming language. There is really no obvious way to simply "convert to the new syntax"? And trying to have "go with nil interfaces" library interact with "go with normal type system" would be it's own can of worms.
Like in this case, the only realistic path I could see would be you deprecate it, then you start warning, and then in like 10 years or something you fully remove it?
It depends a lot on where the farm is, how much they irrigate, and when they irrigate. But often something like >90% of the water goes back into the ground, where it will eventually make its way back into the aquifers and rivers.
It's why often farm water usage is not nearly as bad as it superficially seems, and why farm water usage of a river can be multiples of the actual river flow
> It's why often farm water usage is not nearly as bad as it superficially seems, and why farm water usage of a river can be multiples of the actual river flow
It's bad enough that not only is a huge share of river water used, but that the actual ground is sinking in the Central Valley from depletion of groundwater resources:
> It's why often farm water usage is not nearly as bad as it superficially seems, and why farm water usage of a river can be multiples of the actual river flow
This is beside the point.
The issue is the reservoirs. If the reservoirs and sources are being depleted faster than they replenish then their levels go down.
The water crises are about the reservoirs and sources going down. We don’t care how much farmers use in absolute numbers as long as it’s not overwhelming the capacity of the systems to replenish themselves.
Sure, 90% is an overestimate of the portion of water applied for irrigation that returns as recharge to the groundwater system.
However that number is not zero in the Lower Colorado River basin. I work in groundwater modeling for various clients in the desert southwest, the number we assume for agricultural return flow recharge varies based on crop type and other factors. 90% is an overestimate, 0% is an underestimate
I'm not familiar with that area, but considering it's not coastal it seems hard to believe the water is simply wasted once it goes into the ground in the lower Colorado basin.
Imperial county is not actually that far from the mouth of the Colorado... Except that, for practical purposes, it does not have a mouth any more, on account of all the water being taken from it.
My guess is that most of what sinks into the ground from agriculture makes its way to a saline aquifer. Some of it may end up in the Salton Sea, which itself is very saline and also shrinking.
Clearly not the case in the San Joaquin valley, there is massive subsidence and the Kern river and Tulare lake disappeared (notably exception is this year due to exceptional snowfall).
Because this defense doesn't solve the issue that the water is being used faster than it's being replenished. The biggest issue with this is on wells which are sucking so much water out of the ground it's collapsing the ground itself, in ways that are likely permanently lowering the water capacity of the ground. Even if it doesn't the run-off water isn't going back into those deep aquafers.
Eventually making it back into aquifers could mean that in 500 years it mostly ends up in an aquifer near somewhere 500 miles down river/wind or something similarly unhelpful to the region in the short term.
Perhaps it's the same reason that in the Yudkowsky vs Hotz podcast yesterday, Hotz didn't know what a gelding was despite being incredibly smart -- zero farm experience.
To be fair, geldings aren't really a part of modern farm life. Steers and barrows are still common if you're in livestock, maybe wethers, but horses are more a hobby and only coincidentally associated with farms.
I mean, farms come in a lot of varieties. Entirely possible for one to be successful at cranberry farming but know little about many/most/all animals (that don’t attack their crops).
These stories leave a bad taste in my mouth. It hasn't yet gone to court, so the guys allegations could be really be anything from the God's honest truth all the way to a complete fabrication. Yet there is a huge amount of irreparable damage by public stories like this.
I was once personally on the receiving end of a complete false sexual harassment allegation from a coworker almost at random (someone I had almost no interactions with, ever). There wasn't even a sprinkle of truth in the whole thing. I was saved by pure dumb luck, where against all odds just happened to have irrefutable proof one of their claims was impossible which led to her dropping the whole thing. I'm still a bit jaded that there are absolutely zero repercussions of making false claims.
I guess I feel like "Innocent until proven guilty" is a pretty good model and running a story just amplifying one persons unproven claims kind of goes against that.
The ugly truth is — false sexual harassment complaint is one those things in life you keep hoping and praying it never happens to you. But if it does you’re screwed one way or the other.
The stigma that it “automatically” brings just doesn’t go away. It just doesn’t. You forever become “that” person. And I really don’t know how it can be fixed. That’s just how it is.
The Billy Graham/Mike Pence rule is your best bet: don't let yourself be in any situation where a false accusation could arise. Of course you'll be accused of being a sexist/misogynist/whatever instead but that's easier to ignore or overcome than false accusations of sexual harassment.
Hard disagree. If I decide I can have a closed-door 1:1 or a lunch 1:1 with some of my direct reports but not with any that are female, I’m inherently discriminating against them.
I’d way rather treat all employees fairly and fade a <1% chance of a false accusation than to treat employees unequally and cut that chance in half.
I had a Professor in college who refused to meet with me behind a a close door, and we were both male. He kindly explained that he picked this up from a former professor of his. He wanted zero possibility of a student accusing him of sexual misconduct. At the time I thought it was a bit strange, but I agreed and left the door open. 20 years later, it doesn't sound so strange anymore.
In the end, no amount of evidence will save you when they have it out for you because you're a man. There is the famous case of the German train conductor Ralf Witte and his friend, who were both falsely accused of rape by the friend's daughter. They were falsely imprisoned for a combined 10 years before the ridiculous verdict was overturned, even though the daughter was a known liar, frequently submitted contradicting testimony and they had alibi for several of the dates where the supposed rape took place. Among other things, the daughter claimed that Mr. Witte took her virginity, then later claimed that she had been enslaved in a human trafficking ring years earlier, directly contradicting her earlier statements. Any evidence not fitting the story that the judge and DA wanted to hear were simply explained away as the victim "misremembering".
Had so many problems in one office that they re-architected it so every office had (at least) a large window. Complaints of hanky-panky dropped to zero.
"Odd that sokoloff only has private lunches with the new kid that just graduated."
You're not saving yourself from any false accusations. The people you have closed door sessions can accuse you of SA regardless if you're attracted to them.
It's one of the "possible, but not really viable" solutions I think. I'm probably not going to coordinate schedules in order to have a chaperone present for all of my meetings, not going to cancel meetings when the chaperone is sick/on PTO, not going to take the chaperone on all of my business trips, and probably not going to discuss confidential business topics (upcoming mergers, divestitures, or budget problems brought on by carrying 1/4 of our headcount as chaperones in the company, etc).
Most of these places have seccams every so many feet from each other. Team rooms could have them w/o audio so people can feel at ease to express themselves while also having a silent witness in the event of any physical aspects of the meeting were to come up --obvs there are some limits as most have a def retention of 30 days.
Didn't want to post from my main account to avoid any references and trails. It goes beyond just sexual harassment at work. I was accused by my ex wife. Even before any trials or anything: I lost my job, banks, housing and pretty much anything that requires a background check. I fought this for a year, and everything was dropped, because her friend came as witnesses and explained how she and my ex wife planned on setting me up, because I asked for divorce after found out about afair.
Even with all charges dropped, case sealed, I guess background agencies still have record of it, and I still get rejected.
The whole guilty until proven otherwise can ruin anyone's life, and the accusor in my case walked away completely untouched.
You can blame the #metoo movement for making it such a massive crime. I had a ex resurface in 2011 who was sadly addicted to drugs, she came to me for money. When I turned her away, she contacted the company I was working for (I was an outside contractor) with claims that I raped her when we were high school kids (1996). Shortly afterwards, I was notified my contract would be ending and I had to train my replacement. After contracting there for 3 years, it was not renewed and then I had to train my replacement?!?! I didn't have any real options to fight back and even if I sued her, she wouldn't have shown up and she hasn't had any real job outside of Walmart.
The timeline of getting my contract not renewed was actually a chance for me to move across the country, something I had been wanting to do for over a year.
And imagine, had that friend not come forward, you would've been screwed. People mostly assume chicks are the innocent party, people mostly assume men are the guilty party.
And people's excuse is that men "do the most crime", but it's like: well what about male victims who are left in the dirt, what about the fact that men are also victims of the most crime as well.
In the context of contract law, debt collection and civil litigation, the term judgment proof is commonly used to refer to defendants or potential defendants who are financially insolvent, or whose income and assets cannot be obtained in satisfaction of a judgment.[1]
Being "judgment proof" is not a defense to a lawsuit. If sued, the defendant cannot claim being "judgment proof" as an affirmative defense. The term "judgment proof" instead refers to the inability of the judgment holder to obtain satisfaction of the judgment.[1]
If a plaintiff were to secure a legal judgment against an insolvent defendant, the defendant's lack of funds would make the satisfaction of that judgment difficult, if not impossible, to secure.[2]
> If a plaintiff were to secure a legal judgment against an insolvent defendant, the defendant's lack of funds would make the satisfaction of that judgment difficult, if not impossible, to secure.[2]
Even if they can't collect, wouldn't there be some significant value to the judgement, making it less of a he said/she said thing? When confronted with the allegation, it could be rebutted with the facts that you 1) sued, 2) prevailed, and 3) and are owed a lot of money.
Yes, in civil court. The DA office won't take on false accusations charges.
Edit: I could sue her, but nothing will come of it, she's completely broke, alone and live rent free taking care of old lady with dementia. And as of me, idk, never held grudge or wanted any vengeance upon anyone, it's easier to just cut ties, and never be associated with her
Is that what your lawyer told you? Cuz unless it's a mega corp lawsuits are expensive and they often settle if the demand is under a certain amount and there is a real or mostly-real complaint.
Plus a series of judgements does a good job of illustrating to others that all allegations were false, and were looked at by a court (possibly multiple times) to determine if they had any validity.
3 judgements in your favor is a good rebuttal if it ever comes up again...
What good would that do? OP would likely get a few thousand dollars, and the bank would make that in profits in less time than it just took you to read the word "profits".
You'd end up costing yourself money, just in the sheer time it would take to do it.
More men are going to go through this regardless of whether he sues or not. I can't imagine people who would do this kind of thing being deterred by a small civil claims court case somewhere random.
It’s not deterred because the idea that men will actually stand up for themselves is so low. Mixed in with systemic sexism against men in the courts of course
If you want to change that, men have to hold themselves accountable for protecting themselves against women.
You might not like that reality, it’s not a good one, but it’s true.
Civil court cases don't change anything, it's just dispute. And I don't think it's issue with sexism against men. I think it's social and judicial issue.
I think it's good that people can come out and without expecting any harm accuse someone who caused harm physically or emotionally. But you will have people who will try to exploit the system to gain some lavage.
Do you think social view on me gonna change if she was charged with false accusations? Nope, many would say not only I got away with it but also got her into trouble. And it doesn't remove charges from whatever blacklist I'm on. Issue is deeper than just sexism.
Because those type of crime considered as crime of moral turpitude and it's way easy to throw you under a bus than to have anything to do with you, probably mostly social aspect of it, and hight risk of repetition. Even with name cleared, it's easier to just avoid
Edit: Don't usually wrap other people into this type of issues. But look at case of Justin Roiland, he was only charged, not even pre-trial and everyone from job to friends turned back on him (I don't judge he might or might not be guilty). But once you publicly accused you are guilty even if you proven innocent
Hold account sure, debit card, easy. Credit cards, loans or mortgage good luck getting. Actually murder or financial crimes, and many other types of crime is tolerable by banks
The real issue is that people stopped caring about whatever the justice system is going to decide.
There's a new religion of social justice, and this religion is harsher than even the old religions.
The old religions you were at least judged by an omnipotent being who could see the whole picture. This new woke religion have you judged by a dumb mob. Everyone's playing the judge and everyone's responsible to punishing everyone.
As if punishing a bad person is a virtue. And as if there's nothing wrong about lynching an innocent person.
And this is a direct result of lack of religion. The absence of religion isn't lack of oppression, it's oppression by a dumb blind mob. Religion isn't the truly primitive behavior, the truly primitive behavior is this dumb mob social justice that's spreading now.
Everything in your comment is pretty reasonable until this:
>And this is a direct result of lack of religion
You claim this like it's proven to be true. It's not. The reason for this inherent ask for social justice in my opinion has nothing to do with religion. Instead, I feel like people got disappointed in existing justice system, looking at nasty people going through life unfazed, even though it is painfully obvious they are guilty. Innocent people going to prison over dna evidence that turns out false 10+ years later. Policemen killing innocent citizens and not getting punished. If you fix the justice system, there will be no need for social justice.
So the justice system built by many intelligent professionals failed, but the dumb mob justice will succeed?
It is the lack of religion, because religion is exactly what would fill this gap in the minds of people from seeing injustice. Maybe the earthly judges failed, but I don't need to be cruel and punishing because the criminal will get what's coming for him in the next life.
It doesn't even matter if this argument is true or false, and if there is another life and judgement in it. That line of thinking clearly keeps people more civilized. Here in the present, in an objectively observable way that even complete atheists could compare.
> So the justice system built by many intelligent professionals failed
Yes - clearly the justice system has been coopted and corrupted and "social justice" is one of the expected and observed outcomes (similar but different than mob justice - which is also another expected outcome when you can't rely on actual police/judiciary).
The resolution to all this is to restore faith and trust in our formal justice system - and there are folks fighting for that also.
>So the justice system built by many intelligent professionals failed
No it was built by people like you and me. You know those useless people in your office? They're also in the judiciary. You know that stupid policy that while it may have some uses, leads to other bad outcomes but no-one can be bothered to fix? That's also present.
Not OP and also kinda disagree with them at the surface value of the statement, but maybe not with the underlying premise.
One of the worst people I know are "religious". Some of the kindest people I know are also religious. This gave me cognitive dissonance for while about religion.
Then I realised that all the horrible people were actually communal narcissists who grab onto the lowest hanging fruit, which is performative religion. They just want to be seen as holier-than-thou, and Churches (applies to most other religious communities, I'm just trying to be brief).
Church is no longer the lowest hanging fruit, but social media is; that's their new holier-than-thou platform.
Now, back to their core premise: I don't think religion is what these people are missing, but a sense of wholesomeness and mindfulness.
Different forms of religious practices can give people this wholesomeness and mindfulness.
My preferred practice is meditation, but I'm not really that spiritual. I guess am a bit inwardly, but I doubt anybody would describe me as spiritual.
I think it's no coincidence independent religions have developed similar methods to quiet, direct and focus the mind.
Buddhism and mediation is just the closest thing to a repeatable, scientific approach that developed. Probably because there's little externalities involved.
So, I guess their intuition about lack of religious practices is correct (In my layman opinion), but I think it runs deeper (at a mental/psychological level) rather than a divine one.
A great book I would recommend is "The Mind Illuminated" by John Yates. It covers briefly what I outlined earlier, but with a historic lense, and it also covers the colourful history of meditation and Buddhism (also briefly).
It's not so much about mediation history, but more a manual on how to meditate (written by a neuroscientists who had this same intuition about religious practices I describe above, but he explores it through his expertise as a neuroscientist, and eventually landed on mediation as the "best" practice for the mind).
There's also some spirituality in it, but if you're anti-spiritual, you can gloss over them.
Back on the topic of this thread:
I think all these witch-craft style trends we had in the past are signs of weak, idle and chaotic minds. This isn't to say every progressive person is like this (I consider myself progressive), but some are, and they paint what should be a great movement into something bad.
And let me be clear, those same weak and disregulated minds are not exclusive to the latest woke movement, they are equally as present in the opposite side, but that side just had a much smaller stage currently. That's probably because we, people as a collective, realise that being progressive is good, so we have been more tolerant of the bullshit from one side than we are from the other.
Ideally, we should be progressive without the bullshit. But alas, human nature is flawed, so we have to endure socially fad after fad in the hopes that one day we will finally learn a lesson.
Edit: wanted to add, I in no way mean to say that being spiritual or believing in a higher power is bad. If it works for some: great for them! I just think it's less "robust" if that makes sense? I'm not quite sure how better to describe it; I'd have to sit and think about better formulating it
What you describe in this comment, I would not call religion. I think the better descriptor would be "spiritual practices", and these are closer to shaman rituals of old, in my opinion. I agree, these practices including meditation and practicing awareness are very useful tools. I would even add psychedelics to the list as it can be a massive boon in self-reflection. Unfortunately nowadays in an eye of common public, everything tangential to anything woke has became tainted as undesirable so many people turn to more classic religion that is more about judging people.
> I think all these witch-craft style trends we had in the past are signs of weak, idle and chaotic minds
Can't say that I agree. I think it is more of a consequence of social media having a hard cap on empathy you can feel to a string of letters on the screen in your hands. A lot of people simply don't realize the kind of effect their actions can have on other people, all of that multiplied by mob mentality. Worse yet, social media companies are incentivized to provoke this effect because it is clearly visible in their a/b tests - angry people generate more content. I think the real solution here is in changing social media to me more empathetic, but alas I can't see it happening easily.
Sorry, I meant to write witch-trials/hunts! It must've autocorrected. Thank you for spotting that and calling it out!
And to tie into your reply: the mentality you described is exactly the same one thay current social media mobs share with the "hunt the witches" mobs.
Also, my comment could use some more general word smithing, but it's too late to edit now. I think we agree both that what I described isn't religion, and I meant to say that religion itself isn't the missing bit, but some of the tools that were commonly present in religions. Meditation (and likewise psychedelics) being my favourite tool, personally.
I also agree with your observations on social media making this worse for the reasons you outlined.
> The old religions you were at least judged by an omnipotent being who could see the whole picture.
That is no different than the dumb mob considering that "gods judgment" always needs to be interpreted. Some mobs do that differently than other mobs but they are all mobs in the end.
>> The old religions you were at least judged by an omnipotent being who could see the whole picture.
> That is no different than the dumb mob considering that "gods judgment" always needs to be interpreted.
I don't think you got the point. The idea is that a truly wronged party (and their allies) can still feel like justice will be done if the system doesn't work, without doing anything, because in the end God will do it.
If that's not understood, then the allies will feel justified going after the (potentially falsely) accused extra-judicially or otherwise tilting the playing field in a way that results in more innocents get punished so it's felt to guilty people get away.
>The old religions you were at least judged by an omnipotent being who could see the whole picture
Unless you believe some deity ever really went in person at all these trials, you do realize that this is a complete indoctrinated perspective, don’t you? In all cases, this is only humans judging humans.
>As if punishing a bad person is a virtue. And as if there's nothing wrong about lynching an innocent person.
There is no need to essentialize a person for some bad behavior — did this person actually engaged in this behavior or not.
Letting a person engage in bad behavior without acting to prevent reiteration and hardening along this path is probably no more virtue.
Note that "punishment" is one way to try to bring people to more behavioral changes, but not necessarily the most efficient, nor the less ethically sketchy, and definitely not the only one.
> And this is a direct result of lack of religion. The absence of religion isn't lack of oppression, it's oppression by a dumb blind mob.
I am not especially acquainted with USA justice system, but lack of interference by religion into judiciary system is certainly not the description I would tag over the thin knowledge I have of it. Or do people stopped to swear on bible there and dropped the "in god we trust" motto?
Neither religions nor crowds are 100% sure receipt to oppression, but certainly both can be instrumentalized to achieve oppression. Just like self-proclaimed smart elites.
I believe the parent is using the word “religion” in a different way than you seem to realize, and in a much more general way, similar to how this concept is for example used in archaeological histories of human kind, i.e. the Sapiens book. Religion, in this sense, is not specifically referring to some specific practice of spiritual beliefs, but rather a more general shared abstract perspective among a group of people. Similar with the word “omnipotent“. Though I think this metaphor or definition may be lost on some readers.
I am not sure I get the proper perspective after it, but it is still nice to have a feedback like that.
To my mind religion on a broad view includes practices like animism, for sure. So I would tend to believe I get your point.
On the other hand, a statement like "The old religions you were at least judged by an omnipotent being who could see the whole picture" seems to precise to match a broad sense of religions. Animism for example doesn’t imply that such a powerful entity exists and judges everything you do.
Actually, apart from Abrahamic ones, which religion out there would fit such a restrictive set of beliefs where there is an omniscient omnipotent being so concerned of judging human individuals?
I interpreted it differently, as the "religion of the justice system" where a single "judge" oversees the whole picture, hearing from both sides, to make a proper judgement that is ideally objective and based in the "religion" of law. "Omnipotent" doesn't mean a God, necessarily; indeed one of its main definitions is "having great power and influence", which applies to a court justice.
> And this is a direct result of lack of religion. The absence of religion isn't lack of oppression, it's oppression by a dumb blind mob. Religion isn't the truly primitive behavior, the truly primitive behavior is this dumb mob social justice that's spreading now.
Nah, they're both truly primitive. China doesn't have this "dumb mob social justice" phenomenon and is largely irreligious. Irrationality isn't inevitable.
China has Internet mobs and flame wars too (across many of the same range of issues and sides), but this is usually suppressed by widespread censorship that simply shuts down all discourse.
I would even argue that the mentalities behind the worst performative excesses of social justice culture are even more present in China, by virtue of it being less democratic in practice but more democratic on paper. It’s just harder to accidentally form a mob, or at least that’s the perception.
(And when they do occur you don’t hear about them much. High-profile nationalistic riots and ethnic riots had taken place, offline, at least in the recent past.)
And a lot of religion, spirituality and superstitions, anything from Buddhism to Taoism to folk religion/superstitions to evangelical Christianity. And religious cults too. Yes, even among the educated elite.
It’s just that you don’t often hear about them, because image is everything, and _Jia-chou bu-neng wai yang_.
(Source: grew up there.)
Irrationality is in practice inevitable, because lack of information and motivated reasoning. Complete freedom and moral relativism won’t stop it. Cultural relativism won’t stop it. Authoritarianism won’t stop it. Humans are flawed. It’s better if we all got used to that concept, and both (1) thought more about what we know and how we know it, and (2) try to mitigate the impact of this. How this might work in practice, I do not have a clear idea, but growth driven by engagement metrics needs to die.
Don't get me started on China's social credit. I'll pick the mob justice over an unintelligent oppressive dictatorship. Communism is a whole religion of its own, and it's even more oppressive and pervasive than other religions, and it fosters corruption.
The legal system is nothing to do with justice - it is a general accepted arbitration mechanism but god knows why - there is nothing good about it. In fact there is lots that is bad about it - not least the fact that the governance system can decide what is legal or illegal, but will of course never hold itself to those standards. And then it can do things like mandate insurance payments under threat of revoke your 'license to trade'. Or pass laws to retrospectively tax people for what was legal at the time. All in the name of keeping people safe or something..
The only winners in the system are the governance system that receives fines, and the legal personnel (eg lawyers) that charge fees to use their 'special license' to help their clients navigate the artificial terrain that they know something about.
Duels to serve 'justice', when your honour has been besmirched, is a better system. It is quicker and cheaper, does involve gaslighting everyone into believing in some archaic nonsense, you directly address the cause of your complaint. It would also help crystallise whether this is something one is prepared to die for, or whether it is better to pass.
Exactly, people need religion, so they will stick to the first thing that comes up, ritualize it then prosecute you in its name.
This is why I laugh when I read that like 50% of people in X country are atheists, are you kidding me? My guess would be less than 1% of people are really irreligious, it's a difficult state of mind to be in, but it's also so peaceful when you know you know nothing.
Its a synthetic religion, alright, but it wouldnt have spread that much, if people were happy with the old religions.
At the core is the same mechanism working in other religions. Get the sexual different to provide matrimonial contract security (aka a proto law version), which now is replaced with a provide social security. I suspect, this is one of the reasons of record numbers of men dropping out of working society. When you goto work for nothing directly related to you, why work at all..
But at least it allows those enslaved for contract security, to remain free otherwise. And it is not as repressive when it comes to new things.
I still vividly remember the demonization of video games and all things new by evanglical religions. No fiction allowed by those, who life in fiction.
TL,DR; Yes, it is a religion, but of all the religions its the least worst.
Actually really good point. In times of old if you sinned, all you had to do to get your sins washed away was to go to confess, maybe make some donation. Now instead of that when nasty shit gets leaked, you can make a public apology, maybe make a charitable donation to some noble cause. But then people see you formulaic ass post, donation to a friend's charity and not a hint of change in behavior, and they tell you to fuck off with that fake shit. But if you actually understand your mistake, make a genuine apology, and correct your behaviour, people will forgive you. There are many examples of that.
Did they have that? Guess, some shizophrenic mother performing exorcisms on her daughter needs mercy every day. Did not felt very accepting though of artists and others who pushed the boundaries. Well at least there were books to read, endless versions of the bible - until just the ecyclopaedia becomes a mental save haven.
Your dream might have been somebody elses nightmare?
Old religions were already on the decline for decades as information became mainstream.
Once the initial purpose was done, this lynch mob religion seems to be have continuted with malicious intent of stepping on others without the need for reason, just a target is enough, no need for any process.
At least old religions had the excuse of being ignorant in ancient times, what does the current one have?
Immature bloodlust for anyone considered "others".
Religions revolve around the concept of spirit - the absolute truth that's behind everything. Interpretations of that truth vary, but this cornerstone concept remains the same. DEI is anti-christianism in this regard: it tells people to obsess with their body and emotions, and skillfully divides them into isolated camps.
How would background check services get hold of this information before trial? Were you arrested? I'm sorry, but based on my experience with these systems, this sounds like a fake story.
Even the detail about your bank accounts being closed doesn't add up at all.
Arrest records and charges are public records. Maybe I wasn't very clear about banks - let me try clarify. I lost my house, and it was hard to find place to even rent because of background checks. And ex cashed all money from my saving accounts while I was arrested, since it was shared account, it was totally legal for her to do that. So I have no money, no car, no place to rent - nothing. Tried to open a credit card to get by, banks I tried refused me.
I know someone who lost his entire life, children and financial condition after being levied with false cases in urban India. Yes, even in a country like India in the urban and educated areas the laws are so anti male that there is not much a person can hope for. He was acquited after many years but the wife did not face any legal repercussions.
The issue is instead of helping the women that actually need these laws, they are mostly exploited by a small minority of urban, educated women to their own ends.
The bitter pill to swallow is that there are people of all sexes and demographics who are shitty out there and whatever set of laws there is will be exploited by them for their own ends. Someone's inevitably going to get the short end of the stick, because the government actually isn't and can't be all knowing. (And nearly inevitably it's the disempowed who get the short end of the stick. Not because they're better than the powerful, but because the powerful are best positioned to take advantage of any social situation.)
But all the laws are doing is allowing entrenched corrupt interests including the police, judiciary and few others to use them to their benefit. At least some reforms have been announced by Indian Supreme court, otherwise I doubt these one sided laws would be considered legal in any other democratic country. Surprisingly reading cases in any of the Global North makes me doubt that is the case.
Not quite as damaging, but I was accused of harassment from some blue-haired weirdo on a video call with nearly a hundred people at work. Like you, this was a person I had zero interaction with prior to the call.
I considered getting a lawyer involved because I feared this could blow up, but was talked out of it by my boss, who asked me to apologize and "let's leave it at that".
No, I didn't communicate with them ever again - but my boss wanted me to apologize to "help clear the air". My boss was worried about their position, and went with the best option to help their own career if things blew up.
> Didn't the 100 people on the call see that it wasn't harassment? What could possibly have happened to make the weirdo think you were harassing him?
Some might have, but deciding to jump in to defend the accused would result in a decent chance of the defender getting targeted themselves, in some fashion.
I hope someone will make a study about a possible correlation of hair styles and borderline personality disorder. Coincidentally, the only girl who ever sexually harassed me also had blue hair and BPD.
Happened in a psych ward, so escalating that issue was fortunately very easy and handled professionally.
Sounds to me like someone has had a lot of different hair colors.
Anecdotes aren't data but when it comes to weird people, and non-natural hair colors, I've seen a lot of overlap. Practically 1-to-1, save for a few of the e-girl, OF demographic doing it to make money via cosplay and the like.
I've never dyed my hair but I do think it's noteworthy when someone is using biased language when reporting their side of a story. Calling anyone a "weirdo" is a good signal for how you might treat someone.
> Blue Hair and the Blues: Dying Your Hair Unnatural Colours is Associated with Depression
> A number of lines of evidence, such as studies of religious converts and members of conspicuous subcultures, have found a relationship between holding and expressing a strong counter-cultural identity and mental instability. Here we test whether dying your hair an unnatural colour - something which conspicuously expresses non-conformity - is related to mental instability, using a large dataset of online daters (OKCupid dataset, about n=14k used in this study). We find the expected pattern, which was moderate in size (p = -033 to -0.23, depending on controls). This pattern persisted even when controls for age, race, sex, sexual orientation, body type, intelligence, polyamory, vegetarianism, and political beliefs were included.
Rick & Morty creator Justin Roiland was charged last week with domestic violence, and Adult Swim has already cut all ties with him. Maybe he's a criminal asshole who deserves jail, or maybe he's innocent and a fabrication has ruined his career.
He apparently has a long history including explicit texts with minors. He wasn't allowed to be around anyone in the production for years and was just recording lines in his own basement. The real scandal there should be that the studio kept everything quiet and only cut him loose when the evidence they already knew about became public.
I have also seen first-hand what happens when someone makes false allegations, and in this story so far we don't know what may or may not be false. I can see why the media would share this story, because it gets readers' attention and has all that sensational gossip-friendly content. At least they remark on having tried to reach the defendants for comment, though that could mean anything.
The problem is that false allegations can be extraordinarily damaging in the short-term, though hopefully the injury evaporates in the long-term as truth takes over.
I am a male who was sexually assaulted by another male. Strictly speaking I was raped, but I prefer not to use that term because of the emotive nature of it.
There is not much you've said I disagree with, but I do want to show that this goes both ways. I have never made a public accusation about the individual involved in my case because I do not have irrefutable evidence that it wasn't consentual. If I was in the jury of his court case I would find him innocent, so how could I reasonably go accuse him of anything?
Really I think we need to have two serious conversations as a society:-
* Individuals should not be able to weaponise sexual assult/harassment claims in public to the extent they do now. If anything, stories like yours make it even more difficult for legitimate victims to tell their story because the idea of destroying the life based off an accusation I cannot prove is really frightening to me. I would like someone to sit him down, privately, and educate him on consent (leading onto my next point) and to never ever do that to another individual again. That isn't an option though, it is a life destroying public circus or nothing.
* Consent, consent, consent. From as early an age we're willing to give children sex education, we should teach them about consent. Certainly in my time at school I was not once taught the legal definitions or importance of it.
I am very sorry to hear that. Both false accusations and becoming an unprovable victim are terrifying.
I don't see how this all doesn't end with near total personal surveillance of one's life - audio & video.
Will culture change to accept everyone wearing body-cameras? We've made that step for law enforcement. Will there be next step? I wonder if those in charge of children will be next - teachers, priests, scout leaders etc. Healthcare workers? Politicians? And finally, everyone.
I can imagine encrypted systems that only give access to recordings in response to court orders. I can imagine a lot of people would opt-in without coercion just for self-preservation.
Teaching "Consent" doesn't work. The monsters who commit sexual assault don't believe in, and in fact cannot comprehend consent. They view it as a checkbox they have to check, a speedbump that once they're over they can ignore. They absolutely love consent education, because they can claim they had consent, and make it a public circus of litigating he-said-she-said.
I'm not going to use a throwaway - I am a male who was sexually assaulted by another male. It's happened to me more than once, in very different ways, and quite frankly for all that it's scarred me I consider it good experience that taught me a lot.
I know platitudes do not help, but I am deeply sorry you had to go through this. I wish our stories were less common than they are. No one should have to go through that as a 'learning experience', but yes I feel the same way.
Clearly the only way to really test improved teaching on consent would be to change the education system and then wait 10-20 years to measure the impact once those children become sexually active adults. I don't think such a dataset is a reasonable request unfortunately.
It's interesting your phrasing of referring to people who commit sexual assault as 'monsters'. I do not think of my perpetrator as a monster, I do not believe him to be evil beyond redemption. Sure, there are some mentally ill individuals who do sexual crimes so heinous it is hard to imagine any road to recovery, but I don't believe my experience lies in that category. I personally feel a series of events in his life drove him to make that decision that day, and it is possible as a society to course correct future generations not to make that same decision. I have to believe that.
Do I have any concrete evidence beyond faith? No. Maybe all rapists are monsters born that way, but that is such a frightening concept I just can't accept that that is true.
No they shouldn't, because such laws will just open the door to even more abuse. Imagine you are raped by someone. You go to the police to report the crime, but unfortunately, they deny, and you can't provide any real evidence. They can now countersue because you've made a "false allegation" which ruined their life.
Presumably for a "false accusation" conviction one would have to prove that (1) the accusations are false, and (2) the accuser was aware that the accusations were false. Merely failing to prove accusations (such as when there is insufficient evidence) would be insufficient for a false accusation conviction, as neither of these requirements are satisfied.
I really wonder about press standards in this case. Both parties are not public figures. Is it normal 8n the US that both are named and pictures are published. I think here in Germany typically at least a pseudonym would be assigned to protect the individuals. Is there any law to protect personality rights in the US?
> Is there any law to protect personality rights in the US?
Not really. Ever see those "Florida Man" memes? The reason that's a thing isn't because people in Florida are particularly crazy. It's because public records are exceptionally easy to access in Florida, and those include police reports. And anything that's public record is fair game for the media.
In some states (I believe Georgia is one), there are regular publications with mugshots of people who were recently arrested in the local area. Not convicted of anything, just arrested. You can buy them at pretty much any gas station or convenience store. Get arrested for, say, public intoxication, and all your friends and acquaintances may just see your photo in the checkout line the next day.
Media vultures will not hesitate to cash in on your humiliation.
It's also the 3rd largest state in the US in terms of population, and has a lot of incredibly rich + incredibly poor areas; as one friend from FL put it "a weird mix of surfer and redneck".
Point is, lots of bodies and lots of dizzying highs and crazy lows. Then add in ease-of-access to records and ecce florida-homo
Those places are far healthier in terms of trust, because if you fuck up and end up in the drunk tank, everyone knows the sordid details. Everyone takes a piss at your dumb mugshot and moves on. In the societies where those records are hidden, you never know what skeletons someone has in their closet.
I'm talking about arrests, not convictions. You are aware that it's possible to be arrested for a crime you didn't commit, yes? And for far more reputation-destroying things than landing in a drunk tank for a night? How would you like for everyone to "know" about the skeletons in your closet that don't actually exist?
Also, if you have any evidence whatsoever that "those places are far healthier in terms of trust", I'd be keen to see it.
Curious where this sentiment was when all the metoo stuff was happening. The slightest departure from “trust all women” or anything calling for presumption of innocence was met with vitriolic blowback.
> I'm still a bit jaded that there are absolutely zero repercussions of making false claims.
Well, you should be. The reputation of the other party should be completely destroyed. How can you attempt to break someone's life and just get away with that as if nothing happened?
Last CCC I attended a free Assange activist told me that a lot of people approached her asking her why she would defend a rapist.
Unfortunately for certain things one the damage is done most people will never notice when it changes. The thing that struck me as odd here is that the news article has photos and names. Not that it would make that much of a difference, but I do remember a time when suspects in the news would be named Ryan O. and Tiffany M. The people directly involved would obviously know who this is about.
In one of the valley startups I worked, I disliked a colleague, because I thought she wasn't good at what she did. I do mumble things(unrelated to people) when I think and I'm a generally distant person to strangers. I kinda knew the feeling was mutual, but what I didn't know until a year after I'd left was that she went around telling people that I talked about her boobs, which was such an odd thing for me to comprehend.
You make it sound like the allegations against Assange were completely fabricated and factually false. The charges were dropped because the statute of limitations expired, but that doesn't say anything about his actual guilt/innocence.
That's not quite right actually - charges weren't dropped, because no charges were actually ever laid. Allegations were made, the case was dropped for lack of evidence, he was allowed to leave the country, another prosecutor later re-opened the case and then an Interpol Red notice was raised for 'questioning'.
Anyway, if you change that to "the case was dropped" then that is technically correct, but the whole case was both so irregular and so politically convenient as to throw the allegations into serious doubt.
It'd take a book to list all the insanity in that case. A book which will get hard to write, because the CPS and the Swedish prosecutors have been deleting evidence like crazy.
One of the few things we do know was that the Swedish prosecutor was threatened when she wanted to drop the case ("Don't you dare get cold feet").
I think the claim is that one is innocent until proven guilty. If they haven’t been convicted of sexual misconduct then calling them rapist is inappropriate.
My last company punished a guy who was accused of some sort sexual harassment by a woman, and they wouldn't tell him who, when, or what the details were. He seemed genuinely confused what it could have been.
Just asking questions, here, but if, hypothetically he actually did do it, and they did tell him, do you think he have been honest with you about it?
It's entirely possible that everyone involved knows what's going on, and he's just trying to save face. People do that sometimes, after they misbehave.
Nope. I had that happen to me at least twice. If you get accused of something unwoke then the accusers identities are always protected, and if the accusation is proven to be false, nothing ever happens. It's a part of how the woke take over institutions.
Oh, it's a still thing, it usually happens when you submit a complaint against your boss to HR, are assured that it will be confidential, and next thing you know, your boss is retaliating against you, because of course the first thing HR does is to go to him, and the first thing he does is to hit you back.
Happens all the time, FAANG firms are constantly getting in trouble for it.
One difference between a courtroom and a workroom, is that a boss can often ruin his accuser's life in the latter. The justice system works because it treats all people as equal. In the workplace, you are not the equal of your manager.
Fortunately, you can always escalate your complaint into a courtroom. Unfortunately, proving retaliation is next to impossible.
The quote from the spokesperson at the very end really makes me think that this situation might stranger than it seems:
In a statement to The Post, a spokesman for Miller denied the accusations against his client.
“This lawsuit is a fictional account of events filled with numerous falsehoods, fabricated by a disgruntled ex-employee, who was senior to Ms. Miller at Google,” the spokesman said. “Ms. Miller never made any ‘advance’ toward Mr. Olohan, which witnesses can readily corroborate.”
Question: is it possible that to have repercussions you have to counter sue, it's just that there are no repercussions during the case against you?
Like, that woman literally lied in court, causing you financial, psychological and image damage, couldn't you have sued for this?
Theoretically speaking, I'm saying.
I think it would require pretty exceptional circumstances to make any sense to try counter-sue.
Like in my case I have pretty conclusive proof that part of her allegation is a lie. And that makes her look sufficiently bad that she's wiling to drop the whole thing.
But if I now tried to sue her, she'd naturally have to revert to asserting her allegations were true in the first place. But only she made some mistakes when remembering the details (oh sorry, wrong event! Trauma!). And I believe I would look vindictive and aggressive, and my real concrete proof is that one part of her allegation is a lie.
For me, it's 10000x easier to just count my blessings than personally consider anything of the sort. I only once briefly entertained the idea just to tarnish her own reputation to the point she would never be able to falsely accuse anyone again.
Shouldn't people names be anonymised in this case? At least in my country it's the law. Often it's just a theater since either everyone knows the alleged perpetrator, or tabloids do sketchy stuff like "Jane D., daughter of a famous actor John Doe").
We had a gaming party at work on a Friday afternoon, and I happened to have recorded my games. Reviewing it, I found I did play against her (and 2 others) in a free-for all. But it was clear she just fabricated the events. Funnily enough while I was playing her, I didn't even know it was her (it was a woman I barely knew and only had spoken to a couple of times).
Anyway, presented with the actual recording she dropped the entire thing and yet managed to have absolutely zero personal or professional repercussions.
That's generally the right way to approach things. And fortunately it seems like there will be some kind of paper trail here, so it should be relatively easy for it to be resolved quickly (probably settled out of court, if his description of things is accurate).
In other stories with other demographic characteristics, though, employers and the press (if it gets to that point) are not nearly so judicious in their evaluations.
Since you didn't mention what happened to the accuser after making the false allegation, I'm going to assume the company just wrote off the incident as a simple misunderstanding.
It has everything to do with gender, she only made that accusation because of her gender. She would got away with no proof and end your career if you had no proof
Ha! But if the victim had been a woman, generally your response would've been more outrage than victim blaming like it is, now.
If we're going to tell male victims that we don't believe them & that they have to prove it we can do the same for female victims; at the moment for female victims, it is treated very seriously from the outset.
However, I almost didn't bother commenting because this distinction between male and female victims will never end, it'll never change and I just have to live knowing that nobody actually really gives a shit about what happens to me; even sitting outside the heterosexual bubble, y'all still reach in with your traditional gender roles BS "men r strong & always do bad things", "women r weak and r always good angels".
I think what's not discussed is that most of this water ends up back into the ground and eventually back into a river. In some ways it even helps regulate river flow. Perhaps one improvement could not not allowing irrigation during from 8am to 4pm or something to reduce the amount of evaporation
I probably have no idea what I am talking about, but I think the time of day plants are irrigated is quite important.
Hypothetically, if you were to water right after the sun goes down, or when the sun is going down, there would be reduced evaporation. But, at the same time, the roots would be sitting in a wet environment overnight, which encourages things like rot and fungal infections, as well as bugs and such.
Again, I'm not a commercial agriculture guy...just a home tomato grower...watering in the morning right before the sun comes up seems to be the consensus, and I have never heard of anyone watering any plant or crop, for that matter, during non peak times.
I would assume evaporation is directly correlated with the surface area the water is spread on. Spreading water on farmland as opposed letting the water flow naturally into the Great Salt Lake is going to increase the effective surface area of the water.
Additionally, plants are pretty effective at pulling water out of the ground and releasing it into the air, so the agriculture aspect increases evaporation as well.
Both go back to the same place though. It doesn't matter if the water evaporates, or trickles down to groundwater, it's the same. If it evaporates it goes to the clouds, and then comes back down as rain, and eventually back into the groundwater.
The real problem is the water that is shipped out in the crops. That's why people say that Isreal is exporting all its water in the form of watermelons.
This is a particularly egregious case, I've never seen a fake domain slip through like that before.
However, I have reported dozens of phishing sites for the company I worked for. The phisher would simply buy ads for $BRANDNAME and create a convincingly similar site and phish users. I would report the website to "safebrowsing" and report the ad. Typically it would take 1 to 3 days for the website and/or ad to be removed, which would give them enough time to do countless damage. Then they would simply register a new domain, and repeat.
At some point the only thing you can do is outbid phishing sites for your own brandname?!
It's a shame google can not self-regulate such evil behavior, but it's clear that it should be illegal for google to allow people to buy ads on brandname searches.
The issue is that it becomes necessary as marginalized candidates are given preferences during the hiring phase. So if the same privilege is not extended during layoffs it will unfairly impact them.
It is brutally unfair to hire by one standard and then suddenly hold them to a higher one. And fairness aside, if you do not look through an anti-racist/anti-oppression lens you would destroy years of work of improving company diversity.
Does this imply that you think that minority candidates that were hired were not as qualified as non-minority candidates? That's the only way I can parse your statement that these affirmative action hires were hired by one standard and then held to a higher standard when fired.
To be marginalized is to be cheaper. All else equal, the cheaper worker will be given preference during hiring. So long as the worker remains cheaper, all else equal, the cheaper worker will also be given preference during layoffs. If the worker works their way up into a position that they are no longer cheaper, they won't be given preference, but they also aren't marginalized anymore so you would't expect preference.
Reminds me of my story: I met a girl in Mexico and decided to quit my job and move in with her. Since I couldn't open a bank in Mexico, I decided I'd just wire the girl all my money. Except upon trying my bank (of America) froze my account and took around 3 months to unfreeze, of which time I had access to absolutely no money.
It's kind of why I find it funny in all the crypto threads watching people here idolize the current financial system. Yet at a whim or some internal AML flag they can effectively trash your life giving you effectively no recourse.
So let's assume there was wide spread consensus that it's a terrible idea and it should work like every other programming language. There is really no obvious way to simply "convert to the new syntax"? And trying to have "go with nil interfaces" library interact with "go with normal type system" would be it's own can of worms.
Like in this case, the only realistic path I could see would be you deprecate it, then you start warning, and then in like 10 years or something you fully remove it?